#24 - Editorialist: Despite the importance it seems to have

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I wanted to understand how we arrive at answer A. I read the analysis in the logical reasoning guide, but I am having trouble breaking down the premises or understanding the analysis provided. Please explain. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Micah

[Robert Carroll]

Micah,

The editorialist's conclusion is in the first sentence: "Money does not really exist." The second sentence is a premise that claims that a universal loss in belief of money is all that would be needed to make it disappear. The last sentence is just an example of the concept in the second sentence. As things stand in the stimulus, existence is a new concept in the conclusion - the premises never talk about a criterion for existence, so the information in the premises has not yet been proven relevant to the conclusion.

If we knew that any phenomenon that could disappear just because no one believed in it would therefore not be an existing thing, then the proper connection would be made. Since money disappears when there is a loss of belief in it, if such dependence on belief were enough to call something nonexistent, we could then agree with the editorialist that money does not really exist.

Thus, what we are looking for to close the gap in this argument is a statement to the effect that "anything that disappears when no longer believed in does not really exist." The contrapositive would be a statement that "anything that does really exist must not disappear just because no one believes in it." You can see that this contrapositive is a good prephrase match for answer choice (A).

Is anything unclear after this explanation? If there is something specific that is confusing, I would love to clear it up.

Robert Carroll

[mpoulson]

I understand. Thank you for your explanation.

[LustingFor!L]

I chose answer choice E, which from the previous explanations I see should have been easily eliminated, because it does not address critical elements. Rereading the stimulus, I can diagram the following:

1st Sentence: This is the conclusion and can be diagrammed as, $ does not exist.
2nd Sentence: This is a premise and can be diagrammed as, No belie in $ -> $ disappears.

However, I cannot for the life of me see how the 3rd sentence can be diagrammed as a conditional statement. Looking at previous explanations, I see that I should have diagrammed it as $ disappears. Can someone explain this to me word by word?

Thank you!

[Ricky_Hutchens]

Hi,

If you want to look at the last sentence as a conditional, it would look like this:

if investors are positive markets rise, but if investors are negative markets fall.

It is their beliefs that are creating or destroying value in the market. Of course, the problem is that this doesn't explain why money doesn't really exist.

[amanda3984]

Super super confused on this one and I just spent about 90 minutes going through it a million times. Here is where I'm confused.

I understand the following parts:

Conclusion
$ does not exist

Premises
If no belief then $ disappears
$ disappears

NEEDED
if $ disappears then $ does not exist
or the contrapositive
$ exists then $ does NOT disappear

I understand the correct answer is A from reading the other threads, but I don't get the translation at all. I'm translating it as:
if exists then exists with no belief
or the contrapositive
belief then does not exist?

I'm stuck on this, and I'm certain it's because I'm not translating answer A correctly, but I just don't get it.

[Adam Tyson]

You're so close, amanda3984! You have everything you need in your diagram and analysis!

It comes down to your excellent prephrase - if money exists, then it wouldn't disappear. Here's how we get there another way:

Premise: Believe Disappear

Conclusion: Exist

Prephrase - anything that disappears (when you do not believe in it) does not really exist: Disappear Exist

Contrapositive: If it really exists, then it would not disappear (when you don't believe in it)

This one might be easier to grasp if we diagrammed it as a "nested conditional", like this:

[Believe Disappear] Exist

We can read this in plain English this way:

If it is true that a lack of belief is sufficient for something disappearing,then that thing doesn't really exist

The first conditional claim about belief and disappearing is, itself, a sufficient condition, and "doesn't really exist" is the necessary condition. The contrapositve is if something DOES exist, then a lack of belief is NOT sufficient to make something disappear.

Put it another way, with a more holistic approach rather than using a diagram, and it means that when things truly exist, belief in them doesn't matter or change that fact. If belief changes something, that thing isn't real.

Nested conditional statements add a whole layer of complexity and fun to conditional reasoning! Thankfully we don't see too many of them. Let us know if this proved helpful, or if you'd like to get into it some more. We'll be here to help!

[Blueballoon5%]

It does help, but I am having trouble converting answer choice A to a conditional statement. Which one would be considered the sufficient, "if everyone were to stop believing in it" or "anything that exists would continue to exist". Thanks!

Hello jonwg5121,

"Even if" is a strange construction. It can function as an "if", e.g., "I'll eat ice cream even if you tell me not to" could be diagrammed as "tell me not to eat ice cream". However, that leaves many other possible sufficient conditions, such as "tell me TO eat ice cream eat ice cream". So to diagram it as a normal sufficient condition may miss the point.
On that note: saying "If everyone were to stop believing in it anything that exists would continue to exist" (slash b e), could coexist with "If everyone DID believe in it anything that exists would continue to exist" (b e). So, belief is irrelevant for true existence.
Thus, maybe "even if" is a way to say "something really isn't needed". As in, "A chicken clucks even if Donald Trump's toupee is on backward", since Trump's toupee is irrelevant to chicken-clucking. So, as I said previously, in this case, "e slash nb", or, true existence (of money) does not need belief, may be the best way to diagram it, using "existence" as the sufficient, and the necessary being something unnecessary! that is, the need for belief is not necessary.

Hope this helps,
David

Hi David! I am a little confused with your last paragraph. I hope you (or someone) can explain further. You explained that "even if" is another way of saying "not necessary." Would that create a double-negative problem with answer choice A. If we replace "even if" with "not necessary," wouldn't the sentence read: "Anything that exists would continue to exist does not necessarily mean everyone were to stop believing in it." A conditional translation would be "Exists NOT stop believing" or "Exists Believing."

[Adam Tyson]

What we mean when is that "even if" indicates that something is not required, which is not the same as saying that it is required to not happen. In other words, it's an indication that something doesn't matter one way or the other. Saying that things that exist would continue to exist even if everyone stopped believing in them is another way of saying that belief doesn't matter. Belief isn't necessary.

In this argument, the author is saying that in the case of money, belief does matter, because a lack of belief would cause money to disappear. If belief matters when it comes to money (per the stimulus), but does not matter when it comes to things that actually exist (per answer choice A), those claims together prove that money doesn't really exist (justifying the conclusion in the stimulus).

Don't literally translate "even if" to the phrase "not necessary", and definitely don't translate it to mean "necessarily not" (or Cannot Be True). "Even if" is a way of denying that something is required, or of affirming that something is NOT required. See the difference?

I hope that cleared it up!

[am2gritt]

After reading through the comments, I think I understand why (A) is correct more thoroughly. The one question that I still have is what makes this question a "nested conditional" rather than a traditional conditional chain?

You're so close, amanda3984! You have everything you need in your diagram and analysis!

It comes down to your excellent prephrase - if money exists, then it wouldn't disappear. Here's how we get there another way:

Premise: Believe Disappear

Conclusion: Exist

Prephrase - anything that disappears (when you do not believe in it) does not really exist: Disappear Exist

Contrapositive: If it really exists, then it would not disappear (when you don't believe in it)

This one might be easier to grasp if we diagrammed it as a "nested conditional", like this:

[Believe Disappear] Exist

We can read this in plain English this way:

If it is true that a lack of belief is sufficient for something disappearing,then that thing doesn't really exist

The first conditional claim about belief and disappearing is, itself, a sufficient condition, and "doesn't really exist" is the necessary condition. The contrapositve is if something DOES exist, then a lack of belief is NOT sufficient to make something disappear.

Put it another way, with a more holistic approach rather than using a diagram, and it means that when things truly exist, belief in them doesn't matter or change that fact. If belief changes something, that thing isn't real.

Nested conditional statements add a whole layer of complexity and fun to conditional reasoning! Thankfully we don't see too many of them. Let us know if this proved helpful, or if you'd like to get into it some more. We'll be here to help!